Horton

Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM`

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@enterprisedb.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus.hagander@redpill-linpro.com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-03-27T22:23:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add allow_alter_system GUC.

  2. Rename COMPAT_OPTIONS_CLIENT to COMPAT_OPTIONS_OTHER.

  3. Remove support for version-0 calling conventions.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:10:31AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Is this really a patch we think we can push into PG 17. I am having my
> > doubts.
> 
> If the worst thing that happens in PG 17 is that we push a patch that
> needs a few documentation corrections, we're going to be doing
> fabulously well.

My point is that we are designing the user API in the last weeks of the
commitfest, which usually ends badly for us, and the fact the docs were
not even right in the patch just reenforces that concern.

But, as I stated in another email, you said you committed the patch,
yet I don't see it committed in git master, so I am confused.

Ah, I figured it out.  You were talking about the GUC renaming:

	commit de7e96bd0fc
	Author: Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>
	Date:   Wed Mar 27 10:45:28 2024 -0400
	
	    Rename COMPAT_OPTIONS_CLIENT to COMPAT_OPTIONS_OTHER.
	
	    The user-facing name is "Other Platforms and Clients", but the
	    internal name seems too focused on clients specifically, especially
	    given the plan to add a new setting to this session that is about
	    platform or deployment model compatibility rather than client
	    compatibility.
	
	    Jelte Fennema-Nio
	
	    Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAGECzQTfMbDiM6W3av+3weSnHxJvPmuTEcjxVvSt91sQBdOxuQ@mail.gmail.com

Please ignore my complaints, and my apologies.

As far as the GUC change, let's just be careful since we have a bad
history of pushing things near the end that we regret.  I am not saying
that would be this feature, but let's be careful.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.